arian wrote:Just because the planes were within 1 mile of each other it doesn't mean there was a "dogfight".

True, but on the Flip side, this also doesn't mean that there was no dogfight. 2 shots were fired with 1 missing. the question rises why did one mis? If the 9X can't hit a close range non maneuvering target then thats a very serious problem.

arian wrote:Doesn't mean there was any dogfight or evading on the part of the Su-22 or maneuvering on the part of the SH..

We have absolutely no way of dismissing the possibility of a dogfight.

If this story is true and if you're correct that no maneuvering was involved then that means the 9X can't hit a very close range target despite the fact that no maneuvering was done.

Or maybe the new multi-spectral flares or other IR contermeasures in use by the Syrian Airforce is extremely effective against the 9X.

arian wrote:Just because the planes were within 1 mile of each other it doesn't mean there was a "dogfight".

True, but on the Flip side, this also doesn't mean that there was no dogfight. 2 shots were fired with 1 missing. the question rises why did one mis? If the 9X can't hit a close range non maneuvering target then thats a very serious problem.

arian wrote:Doesn't mean there was any dogfight or evading on the part of the Su-22 or maneuvering on the part of the SH..

We have absolutely no way of dismissing the possibility of a dogfight.

If this story is true and if you're correct that no maneuvering was involved then that means the 9X can't hit a very close range target despite the fact that no maneuvering was done.

Or maybe the new multi-spectral flares or other IR contermeasures in use by the Syrian Airforce is extremely effective against the 9X.

They were within half a mile distance. We don't really know the actual distances or speeds of course, so it's all conjecture.

But it's not unreasonable to assume AIM-9X minimum range may be a factor. It's probably between 300-500m, and depending on speed and other factors involved, it may simply have been on the edge of the engagement envelope.

Can we please wait to find out what actually happened from a credible source? I'd have to suffer from Gell Man Amnesia effect to take anything from that website without independent corroboration. And good grief, even if the Sidewinder-then AMRAAM story is true, there are probably just as many reasons why it could have been by design than there are for it being unintentional/indication of something went wrong. And then even if something went wrong, it would still only be a data point.

loke wrote:According to CNN it was not an AIM-9X but 9M; and it missed because the Su-22 fired off some flares. Distance was "half a mile":

That would make sense as AIM-9M like all other non-imaging missiles are much more susceptible to flares than imaging missiles like AIM-9X. Of course it seems like AIM-120 is perfectly capable of very short range shots in real world conditions, just like advertised.

Generally we can't make any conclusions about certain missile effectiveness or capabilities based on one isolated incident. There are myriad of reasons why missiles miss. There can be malfunction in seeker or guidance unit or control surfaces. IR missiles can be decoyed by flares or sun or some other form of heat in right direction. Even sunlight reflecting from water or clouds can do that in right conditions. Then the fuze can fail or the warhead can fail to detonate because of malfunction or some mistake made during manufacturing or maintenance. Even pilot can make a mistake during the engagement.

I thought it more likely it was a -9X that was fired. Where is the reference to a -9M in the news report?PS.. assuming that video is not just stock footage.

I think it's very likely that the video is stock footage. All reports (including US Navy website) say that the shooter was E-model, but the one in video and picture is clearly F-model.

I definitely agree that AIM-9X was possibly used, but also AIM-9M is still in service AFAIK and might well be carried instead or with AIM-9X. Maybe they carry AIM-9M for lesser targets and AIM-120 against more capable ones? I can see why -9M would be carried instead of -9X. It's at the end of life cycle and there are likely a lot of them around to carry routinely.